About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the mayor of kandahar was assassinated in southern afghanistan today. a suicide bomber hid explosives in his turban, before blowing himself up inside a heavily-fortified government compound. it's the third taliban attack on an afghan powerbroker in the south in more than two weeks. the new u.s. ambassador to afghanistan ryan crocker said it's proof the taliban is so damaged, it can't carry out large-scale operations. he spoke today in kabul. >> they've had to kind of regroup and figure out what they can do and, in some cases, that has been assassination. we saw a very similar pattern in iraq. clearly, these are horrific attacks but they can also be interpreted as a sign of significant organizational weakness. >> sreenivasan: a taliban spokesman told the associated press the kandahar mayor was targeted for ordering the destruction of homes city officials claimed were illegally constructed. two children were killed during that demolition. the prime minister of norway today announced an independent commission will review how last week's twin attacks were allowed to
a group of army soldiers who were returning home from the front lines in afghanistan with a bill for almost $3,000 or $200 a piece for each soldier to check four bags on a scheduled domestic flight. americans were right low outraged by the incident -- rightly outraged by the incident which was posted in a youles tube video. the fourth bag, for which he was charged $200, contained an import carbine rifle, a .9 millimeter pistol. a spokesman for the veterans of foreign wars told the associated press the fees were the worst welcome home any soldier could receive. the shock of even being charged is enough to make service men and women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are protecting, end quote. members of the armed forces who are serving our country on the front lines should not endure personal financial hardship when they are traveling to or returning from war zones. yet, the media's reporting of the incident last month showed that major u.s. carriers were applying the same or similar policies across the board. airlines were charging soldiers to check four r
, republican congress and the bush years, wars in iraq, wars in afghanistan not paid for, prescription drug bill not paid for, and bush tax cuts for wealthiest americans which have caused most of the deficit, and the problem with the debt ceiling. now we are not calling on them to make some sacrifice and pay for it. most everybody in america knows about dieting. most of us are a little overweight. michelle obama will tell you that any day. we need to watch our weight. but when you go to diet, you got to reduce your calories, and you got to exercise some more. spend some calories, reduce some calories. that's the way you diet. the same thing with the budget. you got a problem at home with your budget, well, maybe you think i won't take that vacation and go to miami beach and stay in that three star hotel, i'll go to fort walton and stay in a two star hotel and maybe get another job or work some more overtime. increase your income, you decrease your spending. and you get it together. this congress, though, has got the problem because in dealing with this and the debt ceiling is independent of
and distinction in iraq and afghanistan would feel that way to draw back on the benefits that they earned. during the bush years our country spent $1.5 trillion in iraq and national defense. the turnaround in our budget picture during the bush years was remarkable. in october of 2008, cnn reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. the debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted to the clock and had to be revised. according to one report at the end of the bush term, the number of jobs in the nation increased by 2%. that's the lowest at anytime since data began to be collected seven decades ago. gross domestic product was at the lowest pace since the truman administration, and the price that america has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts pay for themselves. you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. and yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. by the time that the bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administra
raging abroad in iraq and afghanistan, also unpaid for. and a new entitlement program passed in the past congress unpaid for. and a wall street that instead of being a free market was a free-for-all market. you put that all together and that's what we're coming out of. so i'm wondering, you know, your answer to me suggests that there isn't anymore monetary policy that is going to come forward that could in essence seek a more faster, more robust recovery with a greater job growth? >> well, as i said in my, in my testimony, we, given that there's a lot of uncertainty how the economy will evolve, we have to keep all options, both for tightening and for easing on the table. we're doing that. but, again, we are already providing an exceptional amount of accommodation and, as you know, recovery is still pretty slow. >> now i want to turn to the question of the debt ceiling. i know you discussed that quite a bit. i find it interesting under president bush's years, he raised the debt ceiling to the tune of about $5.4 trillion, during his period of time. i didn't hear the same comments then that
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)